Reusable vs disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscopes: Cost analysis and resident survey

Abstract

Objective Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center. Study Design An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo). Setting Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States. Subjects and Methods The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5‐point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center. Results The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively. Conclusion Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost‐effective option. Level of Evidence NA.

Disposable laryngoscope intubation to reduce equipment failure in an emergency out of OR setting - a quality control case study

“…Based on published [ 8 ] and online available evidence ( https://anesthesiaexperts.com ), disposable laryngoscopes are more cost efficient than reusable ones. Indeed, the predicted 5-year-cost savings with our disposable laryngoscope was significant.…”

“…Laryngoscopes were trialed in the OR setting by non-student, experienced airway management experts (faculty and senior resident Anesthesiologists, Certified-Anesthesiologist Assistants, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists). Immediately following direct laryngoscopy and intubation, staff completed a six-question Likert-scale and open-ended survey, based on laryngoscope characteristics previously evaluated in the literature [ 8 ]. Five evaluation categories were selected after an extensive literature review and tailored specifically to address the use in an emergent intubation situation: 1) packaging & assembly, 2) illumination & airway visualization, 3) comfort & ease-of-use, 4) sturdiness & rigidity, and 5) a global overall rating.…”

“…Recent revised Joint Commission regulations require a more standardized and consistent process for reprocessing and packaging of equipment [ 7 ], and a recent report has demonstrated that disposable laryngoscopes are more cost effective than reusable ones [ 8 ]. Moreover more recent literature indicated, that disposable laryngoscopes could be at least equally efficient than reusable ones in an emergency out of hospital setting [ 9 ].…”

New Medical Device and Therapeutic Approvals in Otolaryngology: State of the Art Review 2020

“… 12 , 13 In one recent study, direct cost assessment between a disposable and reusable video laryngoscope system suggested a saving per use favoring single-use scopes. 14 However, cost is multifactorial and likely varies by the type of endoscope system, life span of the reusable system, and frequency and extent of repairs.…”

“…Single‐use products have appeal due to the elimination of infection risk from inadequate cleaning, avoidance of regulatory challenges with processing and storage, and obviating the need for costly scope repairs 12,13 . In one recent study, direct cost assessment between a disposable and reusable video laryngoscope system suggested a saving per use favoring single‐use scopes 14 . However, cost is multifactorial and likely varies by the type of endoscope system, life span of the reusable system, and frequency and extent of repairs.…”